8 ms·
Hulu: HTML5 Isn’t Ready for Prime Time
- jcapote 16y agoRather, Hulu isn't ready for HTML5.
- Qz 16y agoHulu is an established platform, HTML5 is an upcoming spec that doesn't do what Hulu would need it to do. As cute as your post sounds (and we all love a pithy inversion), it's just wrong.
- pquerna 16y agoHTML5 video will never be acceptable by people who believe that DRM in Video is a requirement. Fortunately, those people have over the last few years been proven more and more to be ignorant of what the wider market wants -- and the video-industry overall isn't being as stupid as the music industry, but fundamentally, they will try to hold on to DRM'ed video content for as long as possible, which is something that HTML5 streaming of video content will never allow. Speaking as an ex-jooster, there are lots of things you can do to create white picket fences when streaming over HTTP, like one time tickets, dynamic rate limiting to prevent mass ripping[1], etc. At best these limit people 'stealing' content to doing it in real time, and makes it hard to 'rip' an entire site. Today that is the situation even Flash is in -- there are lots of tools out there to steal content from Hulu in 1:1 time, and they could do it over HTTP for effectively the same protections, but the content owners still believe in the illusion that they have more viable white picket fences, which Adobe is happy to sell to customers in FMS: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/protecting_video_fms.pdf http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/protec... [1] - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=721965 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=7219...
- roc 16y agoThe worst part of the DRM illusion, is that HULU is entirely second-run TV. It is, by definition, video that has already be recorded, digitized and stored by any number of DVRs. "Locking down" HULU won't stop the serious, won't stop the casual and won't have any effect on video availability past original broadcast. The networks have long since lost the ability to control rebroadcast availability and they remain in deep denial -- almost surely, because lucrative contracts for re-runs require them to maintain this fiction.
- abstractbill 16y agoHulu's video player is rock-solid. If they say HTML5 isn't good enough, I am inclined to take what they say seriously.
- roc 16y agoThe thing to note is why they say it isn't good enough. The argument essentially boils down to: the studios and the advertisers are their customers: the studios don't like the lack of perceived control over the data stream and the advertisers don't like the loss of finer-grained reporting on data-stream consumption.
- potatolicious 16y agoAnd those are important why's. The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet. I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.
- roc 16y agoI never said they were unimportant reasons. I just pointed out that no-one's actually arguing that HTML5 is ready to drop into HULU's business and replace their Flash client today. The story's hook is the rationale, not the conclusion. You miss the point in discussing whether the conclusion is accurate or not.
- KirinDave 16y agoThe reporting complaints stuff seems like a non-sequitur. They could trivially be implemented and integrated with existing systems.
- weixiyen 16y agoI personally disagree. None of those why's are all that important except for the buffering because the end user is in fact the only term in the equation that matters. Advertiser reporting tools are not crucial. They will advertise if they know the eyeballs are there. Neither is DRM. If given a choice to monetize without DRM or not have a site at all and maintaining rights, the choice is obvious (if the business is interested in profits). These are things that advertisers and studios "want", not necessarily need. The only valid complaints are technical things like video quality and buffering. Everything else is secondary and only crucial to Hulu because their business thrives on giving a perceived illusion of ownership to distributors. But when push comes to shove, as it's been stated already in regards to DRM, your content is getting onto DVRs and can easily be redistributed illegally by other means, so what's the point?
- adamhowell 16y agoIs there a way yet to lock down the source file with HTML5 video in the same way that, say, Typekit locks down font files?
- halo 16y agoI certainly hope not.
- adamhowell 16y agoRight, I'm not saying there should be or that I want there to be, but a) this entire post can be translated as "We're not using HTML5 because there's no DRM" and b) even though it's not a business I'd want to be in, certainly seems to be a market opportunity for it
- wmf 16y agoConsidering that TypeKit is just JS with some server-side stuff, there's not much that it could do; I'm sure you could craft some hack to do the same thing with <video>. Edit: pquerna answered this better than I did: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1344880 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1344880
- j_baker 16y agoThe blog post itself seems to have been pulled, but here's a cached version: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=http%3a%2f%2fblog.hulu.com%2f2010%2f05%2f13%2fpardon-the-dust%2f&d=491976131405&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=3441454b,2f202d1c http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=http%3a%2f%2fblog.hulu.com%...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- lenni 16y agoI read it as "HTML's <video> doesn't have DRM". However, his concern about streaming and buffering capabilities seem valid. I'm assuming this will be improved as time moves on.
- JunkDNA 16y agoWell, the lack of support for DRM is always going to be an issue as long as content producers insist on having DRM. I know we've all been 'round this tree before, but I continue to be genuinely perplexed that they still insist on DRM. Network TV is broadcast over the air unencrypted to begin with. Why is the internet so special that all that same exact content has to be locked down? It's like a bank building a safe with several feet of reinforced concrete on the top, bottom, and sides, but putting a plywood door on the front.
- lenni 16y agoI guess the answer to this question is: Because they can. TV watchers would be furious if they had to buy a set top box to decrypt something that used to be unencrypted.
- smhinsey 16y agoI'm pretty sure that this is exactly the case in the US, at least. You do need to buy a box to watch over the air broadcast after the digital transition, although technically it is probably encoded rather than encrypted.
- btmorex 16y agoThat's actually not the case in the US. You don't need a box if your TV has an ATSC tuner. The only reason a lot of people need boxes is that they have old TV's with NTSC tuners.
- 16y ago
- CoryMathews 16y agoIts about time a major video provider stands up for the current limitations of HTML5. I'm glad to see them do this and I would love to hear some BS response from jobs on why they are wrong.
- weixiyen 16y agoBasically, as of today, HTML5 video isn't ready. We all knew that. The guy goes on to say that technology moves at a fast pace and they haven't ruled out HTML5. Google's rumored VP8 release at I/O will help catapult it into prime time. DRM is pointless imo, the sooner the networks realize that, the better.
- not_an_alien 16y agoBasically, as of today, HTML5 video isn't ready. We all knew that. Tell that to the people that think HTML5 is 100% supported, that technologies like Flash aren't needed, and that Youtube has actually moved to HTML5.
- raganwald 16y agoBruce Schneier's expression Security Theatre really describes video DRM. It's to provide the illusion of control, to reassure content intermediaries that their business model is safe regardless of whether it is or isn't.
- kilps 16y agoMy first thought on reading the title was that they don't want the content accessible from the iPad so that they could charge for an app. The other reasons discussed make sense (merits aside), but I still wonder.
- Groxx 16y agoI would think they'd be best-off with writing their own software as a plugin... though granted, that's more work than coding it once for Flash. It's one of the things which Flash is really quite nicely suited for. But if they're interested in offering higher quality w/ lower bandwidth and lower CPU usage on more machines, Flash is definitely not the way to go if you're making a custom DRM. Video decoding isn't exactly its strong point.